eDiscovery – Page 3

ilsteam
August 22, 2019

Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Source Code and Log File, Despite Protective Order

In Opternative, Inc. v. Jand, Inc., 17-CV-6936 (RA)(SN)(S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019), a New York Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to produce printouts of two files of source code, a log file, and a listing of directories and files despite such material being covered by a previously

ilsteam
August 15, 2019

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request for His Entire PST File

In Russell v. Kiewit Corp., No. 18-2144-KHV (D. Kan. June 4, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s request to receive his entire e-mail personal storage (PST) file on the grounds that such a request was overbroad and not proportional to the underlying action. This case stems from Plaintiff’s allegations that he was fired in

ilsteam
August 9, 2019

Court Denies Plaintiff’s Request For Adverse Inference Due To Plaintiff’s Failure to Demonstrate Defendant’s Intent

In Drivetime Car Sales Company, LLC v. Pettigrew, No. 2:17-cv-371(S.D. Ohio April 18, 2019), the Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for an adverse inference sanction against Defendant Pauley Motor on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently demonstrate that Defendant Bruce Pauley intentionally failed to take reasonable steps to preserve

ilsteam
August 6, 2019

Magistrate Judge Recommends Default Judgment Against Defendants For Wide-Scale Discovery Misconduct

In Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Adelphia Supply USA, et al., No. 15-CV-5826(CBA)(LB) (E.D.N.Y May 2, 2019), a New York Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff’s motion for case ending sanctions be granted on the grounds that Defendants’ course of conduct presented “a cautionary tale about how not to conduct discovery in federal court.” The underlying

ilsteam
August 1, 2019

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel ESI Granted Including Setting of 85% Search Term Responsive Rate

In Lawson v. Spirit Aerosystems, Inc., No. 18-1100-EFM-ADM (D. Kan. April 26, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering Defendant to produce documents related to two requests and, with regard to a third request, ordered Defendant to produce documents “to the extent such documents are

ilsteam
July 30, 2019

Motion For Sanctions Denied On Grounds of Failure to Establish Prejudice, Despite Finding Defendant’s Clear Failure to Preserve Evidence

In Maifile v. Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., No. 18-CV-586-TCK-FHM (N.D. Okla. May 21, 2019), an Oklahoma Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions on grounds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate she suffered prejudice from the loss of her previous work computer, despite finding the Defendant’s clear failure to preserve the computer. This case involves an employment

ilsteam
July 26, 2019

Judge Rules That Defendant’s Objections To Discovery Were Untimely And Without Specificity

In Thomas on Behalf of Estate of Thomas v. Bannum Place, Inc., No. 4:17-cv-13492 and No. 4:18-cv-10222 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 6, 2019), the Magistrate Judge granted and denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel in part, ruling that Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s discovery request were waived on the grounds of failing to timely object and for objecting

ilsteam
July 19, 2019

Judge Rules that Two-year Knowledge of Spoliation Prior to Filing of Motion Makes It “Untimely”

In Wakefield v. Visalus, Inc., No 3:15-cv-1857-SI (D. Or. Mar. 27, 2019), the Oregon District Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions against Defendant on the grounds that since Plaintiff knew about the spoliation for over two years, her motion was “untimely.” This case stems from alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in which

ilsteam
July 17, 2019

Judge Rules There is No Duty on Non-Parties to Preserve Evidence

In Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark, No. 5D18-1987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019), the District Court of Appeals, Fifth District, ruled in favor of Appellee, holding that there is no duty on nonparties to a lawsuit to preserve evidence based on the foreseeability of litigation. This case stems from Appellant’s suit against the City

ilsteam
July 12, 2019

Judge Orders Plaintiff To Produce His Telephone Records Citing Lack Of Viable Privilege Claim

In Siemers v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:17-cv-360 (D. Neb. Apr. 8, 2019), the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to produce his telephone records after finding that such records were not subject to a privilege claim solely because Plaintiff’s counsel’s telephone number may appear in the records and that the privacy issues are minimal to non-existent